1. 1 Principles of a Computer Immune System Anil Somayaji, Steven Hofmeyr, & Stephanie Forrest Presented by: Jesus Morales

2. 2 Introduction Written in 1997 Introduces biological approaches to computer security The problem:  Computer systems are plagued of security vulnerabilities  We’ve seen many: buffer overflows, viruses, denial of service attacks and so on Need a new approach to computer security

3. 3 Traditional approach Good in theory, not in practice Computer systems are dynamic: system state continuously changed Formal verification of a dynamic system is impractical Security policies flaws + implementation flaws + configuration flaws = imperfect security

4. 4 Biological approach Dealing with an imperfect, uncontrolled and open environment. Similar to the environment the human body has to deal with Look at the human immune system as a model

5. 5 The immune system (IMS) Protects the body  Vastly more complicated than any computer system Constantly under attack  Parasites, bacteria, viruses Highly effective  We’re healthy most of the time  Works autonomously If IMS were at the same technical state as computer security systems, we’d be extinct

6. 6 IMS: Pattern recognition: self vs. nonself IMS must distinguish molecules and cells of the body (self) from extraneous ones (nonself)  Huge problem: 10^5 different types of self 10^16 different types of nonself (estimate) Human genome contains about 10^5 genes

7. 7 IMS: multilayered architecture 1 st Layer: skin and physiological conditions (pH, temperature) 2 nd Layer: innate IMS (scavenger cells clean pathogens and debris) 3 rd Layer: adaptive IMS (acquired immune response)

8. 8 IMS: adaptive immune system Primarily white blood cells (lymphocytes) Circulate in the blood and lymph systems Negative detectors Detection by molecular bonds  Detection is approximate

9. 9 IMS: adaptive immune system (cont.) Problem: how to avoid autoimmune disorders?  Lymphocytes are self-tolerant  Clonal deletion process Problem: how to recognize the potentially huge number of pathogens?  Genetic process: generate lymphocytes randomly  10^8 lymphocyte receptors vs. 10^16 potential foreign patterns Constant lymphocyte turnover (short-lived: few days) Learning and memory

10. 10 IMS: adaptive immune system (cont.) IMS response to viruses Result: immune memory

11. 11 IMS: diversity Immune system is diverse across a population Each individual has a unique immune system Different lymphocyte population = different detector set Different Major-Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) (genetically determined)

12. 12 Organizing Principles Can’t really implement the same IMS in a computer system We can derive a set of guiding principles Distributability: Immune system detectors are able to determine locally the presence of an infection. No central coordination takes place, which means there is no single point of failure. Multi-layered: Multiple layers of different mechanisms are combined to provide high overall security.

13. 13 Organizing Principles (cont.) Diversity: By making systems diverse, security vulnerabilities in one system are less likely to be widespread.  Diverse protection systems, or  Diverse protected systems Disposability: No single component in the system is essential. Adaptability:  Learn to detect new intrusions  Ability to recognize signatures of previously seen attacks No secure Layer:  Any cell can be attacked by a pathogen---including those of the immune system itself.  Mutual protection among immune system components replaces dependence on a secure underlying layer.

14. 14 Organizing Principles (cont.) Dynamically changing coverage:  Space/time tradeoff  Can’t maintain a set of detectors large enough  Use randomness and replacement Identity via behavior:  IMS uses proteins (peptides) as behavior indicators: “running code” of the body  Computer analog: short sequences of system calls Anomaly detection:  The ability to detect intrusions or violations that are not already known is an important feature of any security system.

15. 15 Organizing Principles (cont.) Imperfect detection:  Accepting imperfect detection increases the flexibility to allocate resources.  Example: less specific detectors respond to a wider variety of patterns but are less efficient at detecting a specific pathogen. The numbers game:  The immune system replicates detectors to counteract replicating  Computers subject to similar numbers game: hackers freely trading exploit scripts on the Internet denial-of-service attacks computer viruses.  Pathogens in the computer security world are playing the numbers game---traditional defense systems, however, are not.

16. 16 Possible Architectures Protecting static data  Self: uncorrupted data  Nonself: any change in self  Change detection algorithms Protecting active processes on a single host  Self: normal behavior  Nonself: abnormal behavior  View each active process as a cell  Passwords, group/file permissions as skin  Adaptive immune layer: rotating “lymphocyte” processes query other processes looking for behavior anomalies If anomaly is detected: slow, suspend, or kill process

17. 17 Possible Architectures (cont.) Protecting a network of mutually trusting computers  Process is a cell. Computer is an organ. Individual is a network  Innate immune system Host-based and network security mechanisms  Adaptive immune system Lymphocyte processes (kernel-assisted)  Can migrate between computers and take appropriate action  One computer (or set) produces/selects/releases “lymphocytes”  No centralized response

18. 18 Possible Architectures (cont.) Protecting a network of mutually trusting disposable computers  Each computer a cell. Network is the individual  Host-based security is the skin  Innate immune system Network defenses (Kerberos, firewalls)  Adaptive immune system Lymphocyte machines monitor each other state If anomaly is detected: isolate affected machine, reboot or shut down

19. 19 Limitations Different goals:  Biological IMS goal: survival  Computer security: confidentiality, integrity, availability, accountability and correctness  Most obvious is confidentiality. Biological IMS does not care about protecting secrets

20. 20 Conclusion Skin and innate IMS (passwords, access controls, careful design) are important Adaptive IMS is still mostly lacking in computer systems. We need it to make systems more secure